It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did the Space Shuttle dock at the Secret Space Station tonight?

page: 9
39
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I would respectfully call that traiterous and disrespectful consorting with the enemy.

Hm…
How do you figure?
I don’t recall BABB ever being considered the enemy around here; as a matter of fact I believe that there are several members who belong to both boards. You apparently have an issue with being called into accountability by folks who are amateur and professional astronomers, and can cut through your nonsense like a machete through soft butter.
Theories such as the one presented in this thread can only exist in a bubble without logic or science, once either of those arrive the bubble breaks pretty quickly.


Originally posted by johnlear
I would humbly submit that ATS has a far more informed membership.

I know of only one professional astronomer who is a member of this site, CommanderKeenKid. As he seems to have taken a sabbatical for some time now, its kind of pointless to U2U him though, isn’t it?


Originally posted by johnlear
If they feel like they want to know the "Secrets of the Universe" they are more than welcome to join up.

In attempting to follow the T&C of both sites without issue, I have not crossed linked this thread over there. I would love to invite them to come here and eat your misinformed space fantasies alive the same way that they did ZetaTalk, Hoagland, and the moon hoax. If any of them express an interest in discussing this, then I'll ask permission from the appropriate authorities of both sites to ensure its ok to cross post a link. Same as I always have when dealing with the administration of this, or any, site.

PS: An astronomy buff coming to you to learn the “Secrets of the Universe” is like an adult going to an infant for advise.


Originally posted by johnlear
surprised at this kind of conduct by you Defcon5. After all, is this not your modus operandi?

My Modus operandi is to tell the truth to the best of my ability in all matters in which I post, and to seek out the truth if I don’t know the facts well enough. After all the MO of this site is “Deny Ignorance”, threads such as this one do nothing but “Propagate Ignorance”. John you’re MO is twice as obvious, and I have stated it earlier in this thread.

You seem to really have an issue with anyone who tells the truth, and I can see why:

Bob Lazar on John Lear
Lazar says: "Well, John Lear's a nice guy. I like him, but he does have the tendency to add about fifteen percent color to stories, and if a story goes through him twice, it's thirty percent, and it doesn't stop."


I have said before, I have no doubt that you’re a nice guy john, but I also think you’re a BS’er, which is not a bad thing unto itself as long as it’s taken as such. Unfortunately here, I think you have been handed a soapbox to propagate theory as though its fact, which is damaging to some folks.


Originally posted by johnlear
Please don't consider yourself an appointed or self-appointed emissary from the John Lear thread "Did The Space Shuttle Dock At The Secret Space Station Tonight" because you are not.

You have the right to post your nonsense, and I have the right to show that its nothing but utter hogwash. As long as I work within the T&C of both sites, and receive the correct permissions without violating any copyrights then you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot do. So far the only link I have posted over there was to a third party site which contained the images in question. Truth is that you’re scared to face any serious scrutiny by folk who are actual authorities in the field, because you know this BS will quickly fall apart, as much as I do.

Besides this I don’t see “Moderator” under your name at the left.
Let me check….
Nope, it says:

johnlear
Member

But…. Thanks for the post.

[edit on 9/3/2007 by defcon5]




posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
hours of work and tons of official documents you ignore

Official documents which show what? That NASA has planed to put up a space station? They plan and speculate on many things that never happen, it certainly is not proof that any of it is going on behind our backs. That is what the folks at NASA get paid to do; to plan things out and think things through. If there was a document showing that there is the budget, launch schedule, or that any shuttles have deviated from their flight plans, I must have missed that one.


Originally posted by zorgon
but images from John Lenard already discussed in Implosion's thread here at ATS you pounce on

I guess that I missed that thread.


Originally posted by zorgon
They were NOT presented as "evidence" only as a curiousity.

Oh really….

Originally posted by johnlear
I believe that the Shuttle goes directly to the Secret Space Station (that John Lenard had pictures of) directly after launch from Kennedy.

Looks to me like they were present as if they are a fact, not a curiosity, but maybe that is just how I read it. Seems to me that if they were being presented as questionable it would have said something along the lines of:

“That John Lenard claimed to have pictures of”… Or…
“That John Lenard had possible pictures of”… Or…
“that John Lenard had some questionable pictures of”

It was stated as a fact, read your own thread.


Originally posted by zorgon
If we knew that we could have our astronomers find them... John Lenard vanished before he gave us the co-ordinates.

Along with the only proof that any of these theories is happening, my isn’t that convenient?


Originally posted by zorgon
What we SHOULD be asking is WHAT ABOUT THOSE DOCUMENTS?

Oh I am sorry let me address those, though anyone with common sense should see this already:


Originally posted by zorgon
The following information and pictures are from a NASA contractors report I ordered from NASA... It is a 198 page contractors report giving dimensions, I-beam loads, support vehicles, etc, etc,

The Final report was completed May 1986 to Oct 1988 and the document was released in 1990...

The only thing I can find on this online is the following:

ISS Advanced Technology Testbeds
The International Space Station (ISS) is already being used to conduct tests of
technology, materials and software for applications in future space platforms and on ISS
itself.

Which is pretty much saying that they would love to build your space station in orbit, but they don’t have that ability yet, and are testing out what will work up there at the current ISS. NASA makes all kinds of future plans, it does not mean it implements them all. They have been photographing the re-entry of EFT’s for a long time, when they could be utilized as ring pieces if such a station framework existed. Those tanks are both filmed from the shuttle, and ground tracked on re-entry. The idea of using the ET’s as space station sections goes back to the early 80’s, and was mentioned when I was a kid visiting the space station mock-up at Huntsville Alabama.

So are there plans to do this? Yes.
Is it being done yet? No.
Is there physical proof that its not being done yet? Yes…
How? The external tanks (Ring Sections) are sent to burn up after each shuttle flight and are tacked and photographed by professionals and amateurs alike.


Bye-Bye ATSS.


Originally posted by zorgon
The Service Vehicle...

Another concept item which there is no evidence that it was even built or put into space. It was included in several of the 1980’s space shuttle models though.


Originally posted by zorgon
The Heavy Lifters... (Remember the name Star Booster)

More concept images. A rocket of this size cannot be built in secrecy as there is too much support infrastructure required to deal with it. The Saturn V’s and the Shuttle SRB’s have to be quite publicly shipped to the assembly location, normally via barge.




Yep I can see where that is pretty darn inconspicuous.


Originally posted by zorgon
The Shuttle outfitted from LEO to Lunar orbit carrying the Cargo ship attached below... (Remember the name "Aquila")

Take a long hard look at this one...

Again, show me any type of proof that this was anything more then an idea penned to paper? You do realize that this is what engineers get paid to do all the time, right?


Originally posted by zorgon
Here is the cover sheet that came with the document I just presented the images from... I will add more on the website later as time allows...


This report summarizes the principal system features defined for the advanced technology space station and describes 21 pacing technologies identified during the course of the study….
The description of systems show a potential for synergies and identifies the benefical interactions that can result from technological advances.


Translation: This would be really cool, but we don’t have the technology to build it yet.

I’ll probably have to split this post into several…

[edit on 9/3/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
THE ISS

Presented for Jack Arneson
Member of Pegasus

Jack and I have been very busy digging through documents and following trails. This will be a continuing project as new stuff comes out of the closet





Yes, it's very pretty. But pretty much useless as well and obsolete, like the Shuttle. Investigations on cosmic radiation and other space physics can be accomplished on unmanned satellites. Onboard systems are failing and can't be upgraded to new technology as it's design prevents easy retrofitting. Electrical as well as other systems hardware would need to be completely replaced throughout the station.

What I believe it's main mission is today is a pick-up point for other missions kept under wraps.

A Home Depot in space....

...supplying food, fuel and other equipment to space stations and craft on secret missions. Of course I can't prove this but
what else is all the stuff going up there for? Yes, some of the equipment is for the station to maintain it's integrity. It needs to stay operational until another system goes online. I'm still gathering information so more follow-ups will follow.

But look at what The NASA channel is showing about it's mission. All you ever see is short, selected video of the station orbiting the Earth in one minute segments. And internal video of personnel banging away on computers or eating Jell-O in zero gravity. NASA has been spouting about the new High Definition Television cameras all over the station, pointing to different areas and Earth.

Well, why don't they have a Hi-Def channel for us to see this amazing footage? Or even broadcast any footage?

NASA does broadcast the Shuttle launches in HD but...we never get to see any Shuttle footage when it reaches orbit insertion, on it's way to the station or on it's way back. Why?.. Because they're seeing things and doing things they don't want us to see. Whether it be UFO's, other space craft rendezvous, docking at secret space stations, etc.I need to investigate this much more so just chew on that for a while.



Russian Launches to the ISS in January, May & August 2007:



Now it seems to me, this is an extraordinarily large amount of food and water for three people. How would they keep fruit and vegetables from spoiling? You can't freeze fresh fruit and vegetables... Well, you can but freezing would ruin them. And it was fresh, not dehydrated, cooked or freeze dried.

Google this and you can find many references to the fresh fruit.

Progress-M 59...

...is a Russian automatic cargo carrier that was launched by a Soyuz rocket from Baikonur at 02:12 UT on 18 January 2007, toward the International Space Station.

It carried 2.5 tons of food, fuel, water and equipment and docked with the PIRS module of the ISS at 03:03 UT on 20 January.

Notice the January flight doesn't break-down the individual weights.How much of that was food and water? And it doesn't take three days to reach the station! All launches are supposed to be timed to make an orbit (a couple of hours at most) and then dock.

What was going on in those three days?

Progress-M 60...

...is a Russian automatic cargo carrier that was launched by a Soyuz-U rocket from Baikonur at 03:25 UT on 12 May 2007.

It carried 45 kg of air, 419 kg of water, and 1.4 tons of dry cargo, 241 kg of fresh fruits and vegetables, 136 kg of medical equipment.

It docked automatically with the Zvezda module of the ISS at 05:10 UT on 15 May 2007.(docked on the fourth day) Four days to reach the ISS? There is no explanation for this behavior.


Documentation...

La Progress M-60 en órbita (Brazilian)
...de ellos 212 kilos de legumbres y frutas frescas

Progress M-60 Docked with ISS (Russian)
Progress M-60 has delivered to astronaut’s water, fuel, new research equipment, food, fresh fruit and vegetables

Progress 60 PDF
Progress is carrying 241 kilos of food, including fresh fruit and vegetables, 136 kilos of medical equipment, medicines and personal items - which includes parcels from the families of crewmembers. Specific to the US side of the ISS, Progress is carrying 377 kilos of food, equipment and clothing.



This article also shows the timeline. The last three paragraphs show the M-60 was not on an ISS course. There were nine separate major thruster-burns in the three days before docking. Do you see how one can find discrepancies with innocent comments?

We are finding alot of information this way. You'll never find anything asking direct questions about a direct subject. One needs to look at the overall picture of any subject and break-down the subtleties and you'll find them.


Update



I watched the Hi-Def 30 minute broadcast of an "interview" with one of the crew members of the ISS on Discovery HD channel on 08/15/07. (on all this week at different times) Ten minutes of it was on what they eat. No mention of fresh fruit or vegetables. The Commander showed dehydrated food packets, fruit juice packets and everything was in packets. Not a banana, apple or veggie in sight or even mentioned.

Now that is intriguing.

I also watched the broadcast of STS 118 crew member Barbara Morgan on 08/16/07, talking to Idaho students via HAM radio. One student asked about her favorite food she eats on the station. M&M's was her choice and she explained that all their food was in packets and vacuum sealed. Some was dehydrated and some in cooked form which they could heat-up for meals. Again...no mention of fresh fruit and veggies. So I ask you again...

...where is the fruit and veggies going? And there's alot of it.

Jack Arneson....



Good question Jack, that is an awful lot of fruit and veggies

241 kilograms is 531.3086 pounds... that is over a quarter of a TON of fruit and veggies

Just how much do those three guys on the ISS eat anyway? And these runs are every few months...



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Oops Double post

[edit on 3-9-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Here let me rehighlight the important factors of this document for you:


SPACE TRANSPORTATION FOR A LUNAR RESOURCES BASE (LRB)
Hubert P. Davis, Starcraft Boosters, Inc.
1032 Military Drive
Canyon Lake, TX 78133
(830) xxx-xxx
email: hudavis@xxxxxx.com

This is a report of a work in progress.(meaning the document not the project). So far as the author is presently aware, this topic has not been previously addressed. Proprietary work by NASA or others may, however, exist that address similar topics.

This work assumes that a base near the South Pole of our Moon will be established for the purpose of exploiting the resources of the Moon; principally the water ice that many believe was discovered by the Clementine and Lunar Prospector satellites. The ice is of particular value as, with the aid of the ample solar resource available nearby, it may become an essentially limitless source of oxygen / hydrogen propellants for continued visitation to and expansion of the base and for the support of additional space exploration missions, including human exploration of Mars.


This is what those of us who work in engineering call a Function Requirement or Design Spec. Its basically a fictional laying out of the components and resources as will be needed if the project is put into action. Its does not in anyway mean that this is occurring at this time.

It’s apparently related with this research study as well:


Helium Mining on the Moon
The feasibility of recovering helium from the moon as a source of fusion energy on earth is currently being studied at the university of Wisconsin

Information on the regional distribution and extent of high-Ti regoliths come mainly from two sources: direct sampling from various Apollo and Luna missions, and remote gamma-ray spectroscopy .


This is a research paper, it is how folks who work for universities get these neat things called “grants” to pay for their existence. It is in no way a admission that this is currently being done, but simply is stating the feasibility of doing it in the future.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   
There is a lot more information that Jack has gathered and we will present it over the next few days...

The Progress and ISS material can be viewed here..

PROGRESS M REPORT

Here is another important point from Jack...



Do you know how long it takes a manned mission to reach the Moon?

19 minutes to reach outer Earth orbit insertion after lift-off.
90 minutes to reach low Earth orbit after lift off.

Two days to reach the Moon after they leave low Earth orbit. And this was Apollo 17, 35 years ago. So why does it take 4 days to reach the ISS?

Progress M class Automatic Cargo Carrier Is An Unmanned Craft. What is the 1.4 tons of "dry cargo" in the May flight? I haven't been able to find any reference to it except that. And 100lbs of air? The station makes it's own air that's part of the life support system.

Although the Russian built oxygen generator Elektron failed in Jan.'07, it's was repairable after extensive diagnosis and spare parts were employed. A hundred pounds would keep you alive for about 5 minutes. Uncompressed, a cubic yard of air weighs about 2.5 lbs

Didn't know that did you?

A typical divers air tank can hold between 1700 and 2400 lbs of compressed air. At a depth of 33 feet, a diver consumes 50 lbs per minute. So what is 100 lbs being used for? The fuel system? I doubt that very much. The station only has attitude thrusters for orientation. The station is dependent on visiting vehicles to adjust it's altitude when needed.

The station already has back-up air supplies on hand and enough for several months. Although some air is lost every time air-locks are opened to do an EVA. And I saw a reference to that somewhere but 100 lbs wouldn't even make a dent in air lock loss.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Nice Zargon, had to bust up and bury my posts eh?
Anyway…

Sealaunch cannot handle the large heavy lifters which you are referring to:

Delta 4 Specs
• Delta IV Medium and Medium+ vehicles use 4-m (13.1-ft) or 5-m (16.6-ft) diameter composite fairings.
• The Delta IV Heavy vehicle uses a 5-m (16.6-ft) diameter composite fairing or a 19.8-m (65-ft) long, 5-m (16.6-ft) diameter aluminum fairing.
• Delta IV vehicles can launch payloads weighing from 4,300 kg (9,480 lb) to 12,980 kg (28,620 lb) to GTO, and can lift over 23,000 kg (50,000 lbs.) to LEO.



Sea Launch Specs
Sea Launch Rocket:
• Stages 1 & 2: Zenit-3SL.
• Stage 3: Energia-produced Block DM-SL.
• Payload enclosure and interfaces: Boeing.
• Widest diameter 14 feet.
• Overall length 209 feet.
• All stages kerosene/liquid oxygen fueled.
• Capacity to geosynchronous transfer orbit:
over 6,100 kg.

The diameter and weight are too much for Sealaunch to handle more then the smaller of the delta 4 rockets. Beside the fact they just accidentally blew up their pad the other day…

Sealaunch News
Sea Launch experienced an unsuccessful launch on January 30 during our 24th mission. We have concluded a Failure Review Oversight Board focused on the extensive investigation conducted by a CIS Interagency Commission. With repairs on the Launch Platform moving on schedule, we are progressing toward plans for the next mission in the 4th Quarter of 2007.
Please look for us at the following meetings:
• September 3-6 - World Satellite Business Week, Paris, France
• September 18-20 - APSCC 2007 Satellite Conference and Exhibition, Bangkok, Thailand
• September 18-20 - AIAA Space 2007 Satellite Conference and Exposition, Long Beach, California

This is what Sealaunch uses, and as you can see it really cannot hold an external tank worth of fuel into orbit:



As to this:


Ive yet to see one going up on a shuttle, they using holograms to cover them up?



[edit on 9/3/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
This is a research paper, it is how folks who work for universities get these neat things called “grants” to pay for their existence. It is in no way a admission that this is currently being done, but simply is stating the feasibility of doing it in the future.


LOL maybe not an admission... but recent dialog we have had with physicists at MIT and Livermore say otherwise..

We have opened dialog and as soon as we have the details, trust me, you will be the first to know... well after us of course


In the meantime, lets find out where that quarter ton of fruit and vegetables is going to, shall we? Or do you really believe that three people can eat that much?




posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Nice Zargon, had to bust up and bury my posts eh?


That's ZORGON and no I was in the middle of posting... just happens you were doing the same...

So while you so busy trying to brush everything off maybe you could answer the dust dispersion on the Smart-1 image I posted a few pages back? Seems no one else has taken a shot at that yet...




posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
PROGRESS M REPORT
Here is another important point from Jack...


Do you know how long it takes a manned mission to reach the Moon?

Because that is roughly the time required for two objects in orbit to catch up to each other while remaining at the same orbit altitude. A prime example:

Apollo Soyuz
The final mission of the Apollo program was docking in space with a Russian Soyuz capsule. In July 1975 three Americans in an Apollo craft and two Russians in a Soyuz capsule conducted joint activities for nearly two days. Thomas P. Stafford, Vance D. Brand and Donald K. Slayton were the three American astronauts and the Cosmonauts were Alexey A. Leonov and Valery N. Kubasov.
Both craft were launched on July 15, 1975. Rendezvous occurred at 12:12pm (EDT) July 17, 1974. The crews exchanged commemorative flags and other gifts on live television. Though many people felt this mission only served a public relations role, there were a number of technological breakthroughs. The most important was the knowledge gained from docking two completely different spacecraft, each with unique atmospheric conditions.

Maybe the Apollo/soyuz stopped in at the bar on the then “secret space station” and had a few rounds of vodka?
Should we really be taking you two seriously if you cannot figure out how objects in orbit move?

Padiwon you must first learn the relationship between orbit altitude and speed. Then you can figure out how long it may take for one craft to creep up on the other.

edit to add:
I’ll get to your dust tomorrow, I’ve killed enough brain cells on this thread already tonight.

[edit on 9/3/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Here let me rehighlight the important factors of this document for you:


principally the water ice that many believe was discovered by the Clementine and Lunar Prospector satellites. The ice is of particular value as, with the aid of the ample solar resource available nearby, it may become an essentially limitless source of oxygen / hydrogen propellants for continued visitation to and expansion of the base and for the support of additional space exploration missions, including human exploration of Mars.


Well see now you highlighted the "many believe" portion as if trying to convince people that it is merely a belief, not a fact...

But I already provided the Department of Defense 1996 briefing that was released Dec 2006.. that states...



Q: So the area that you illuminated, is that in the bottom of this crater?

A: We illuminated the whole area, this whole area was illuminated. So of the area we illuminated, we estimated about a third of the area was permanently shadowed. This is all in the paper, by the way, it's in the Science paper. So that percentage is reflecting like ice.

Q: So it's incorrect to talk of one pond or one lake...

A: Right.


This briefing also states the Clementine Satellite is still out there and would be back in 2005 in Earth orbit...

[e]Q: That translates to what in volume?

A: We were very conservative in the press release, but if you take basically 100 square kilometers by roughly 50 feet, you get a volume of something like a quarter of a cubic mile, I think it's on that order. It's a considerable amount, but it's not a huge glacier or anything like that.

Q: Can you compare that with something you know?

A: It's a lake. A small lake.

Tuesday, December 3, 1996 - 1:45 p.m.

Subject: Discovery of Ice on the Moon

Dr. Dwight Duston, Assistant Deputy for Technology, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization;
Dr. Paul Spudis, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Rice University;
Dr. Stewart Nozette, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory;
Col. Pedro Rustan, USAF, Director, Small Satellite Program, National Reconnaissance Office;
Christopher L. Lichtenberg, Head, RF Active System Section, Naval Research Laboratory; and
Col. Richard Bridges, USA, director, Defense Information, OASD(PA).


So its not "belief" it is fact... 100 square kilometer area 50 feet thick frozen lake on the Moon...




[edit on 3-9-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by zorgon
The following information and pictures are from a NASA contractors report I ordered from NASA... It is a 198 page contractors report giving dimensions, I-beam loads, support vehicles, etc, etc,

The Final report was completed May 1986 to Oct 1988 and the document was released in 1990...


The only thing I can find on this online is the following:
ISS Advanced Technology Testbeds



LOL that is hardly a surprise, that you can't find anything online... so I guess if its not online and you actually have to order a pdf file from NASA or some other government agency or university, then actually READ the papers...

So if its not online it must not exist huh?



[edit on 3-9-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Originally posted by defcon5




Maybe the Apollo/soyuz stopped in at the bar on the then “secret space station” and had a few rounds of vodka?
Should we really be taking you two seriously if you cannot figure out how objects in orbit move?


Actually, according to Alexei Leonov who was Commander of the Soyuz spacecraft (Two Sides of the Moon, St. Maartin's Press, New York) "We had no choice but to dismantle a major part of our orbital section in order to gain access to the wiring of the system of five cameras connected to the switchboard, and fix the problem by disconnecting the switchboard from the circuit."

"It was a long and painstaking task. It took us many hours, during which we had been scheduled to sleep. Our gradual progress in solving the problem was followed by live transmissions broadcast on Soviet Radio."

"After finishing off this complicated task we picked up our first radio transmission from the Apollo Spacecraft after it launched. The American crew had their own technical hitch to deal with. Listening to their transmissions with Houston we understood they were having some difficulty in opening the hatch leading from the orbital section of the Apollo spacecraft to the docking module. Vance Brand "Vanya" had managed to disassemble the docking probe, and Deke had been able to move the docking module to check that everything was working as it should."

But I'm with you Dufcon, I think that was a cover excuse for stopping at the bar at the 'secret space station' with the Russkies and having a few rounds. You know how those astronauts are.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   
You mean rounds as in drinks or a joint passing cypher? I think the latter. Astronauts would find marijuana to be the drug of choice in space. What about when the Iranian American woman went up there to sponser Prodea systems? Who knows what went on.

But anyways, I figured being up there so high would only be better if you went even higher!

Quick little detour here, Its taking me forever to get an answer, John, you would make me happy if you answered this please,....

why does the Space shuttle emit so much exhaust and smoke, and the russkies Soyuz rocket take off without the smoke?



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
why does the Space shuttle emit so much exhaust and smoke, and the russkies Soyuz rocket take off without the smoke?

If you mean on the pad, its not smoke but steam.
The shuttle pad releases around 300,000 gallons of water at lift off to baffle the sound and help to stop the shockwave from damaging the shuttle itself.


Space Shuttle
start at T minus 6.6 seconds. The main engines ignite sequentially via the shuttle's general purpose computers (GPC's) at 120 millisecond intervals. The GPC's require that the engines reach 90% of their rated performance to complete the final gimbal of the main engine nozzles to liftoff configuration.[7] When the SSMEs start, the water from the sound suppression system flashes into a large volume of steam that shoots southward.

Even though the question is not posed at me specifically, I figured that maybe you would like the actual answer as opposed to some bunch of silliness.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5...as opposed to some bunch of silliness.


Methinks if you continue to pour in such a respectable amount of effort you will come around.


"You don't know the power of the Darkside..."

(jus' kiddin')



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Beth... seems your hubby was right about the automation


I don't think it is so


C'mon, we are supposed to keep SOME secrets, can't we? We are pouring so much out into here it won't get digested fast enough and we will wind up with regurgitated material on us...

I come in here and am just about overwhelmed, no, actually overwhelmed, you have half a dozen irons in the fire about now, crossposts out the wazoo, and a full blown wrestling match with defcon5 who I might add did not fall off the turnip wagon yesterday. I know you want to crack the big one just as badly as I do, still I felt I should say something, and if you don't like it I will go back to my power/propulsion lab and play with my bench cat.

Easy does it is
, not fast and hard-word



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Some info here on co-ords for ISS it is probably only relevant to uk though, I also believe it is updated from time to time.



twitter.com...


Another image of the ISS:







Source: www.astronomycameras.com...




[edit on 3-9-2007 by sherpa]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Defcon, you sure present some satisfying answers to my questions. I had a tough time finding this answer by googling. If my life depended on it, I would have probably found the information online for sure. Reason why I ask John is because his father built jet engines. Im sure its a question he can answer.

I think information that is recorded is not all the information we should seek. Otherwise we would still be stuck with wheel technology and bouncing around town on a horse carriage. We should also seek information that has not been uncovered yet, the physical and natural laws, the bigger equation.

John's information is valuable. Why stop at the Illuminati, the bilderburgs, the trilateral commission, halliburton??? Why stop there? Who is on the next floor up? Beuracracy is the only constant in the whole universe, and it never ends.

I know humans were only on Earth for 5000 years tops. I just know inside, I know when I see the subliminal messages and symbology. They control hollywood, look at how they use literature, art, movies to hide the truth. But they still respect life enough to allow the intelligent to be illuminated into knowing what the masses could never know. This is why you see "In God We Trust" On our American currency.

Take alook at some Hollywood production companies.

Universal
Dimension
Columbia (Bringer of light)
Dreamworks (logo is a man sitting on the moon)
Paramount (way up above, peak)

Lets take a look at chewing gums that have mind killing ingredients in them.

Eclipse
Orbit
S ( for serpent)
Trident (devils staff)
Five (we are a level 5 humanoid, out of 7)

The ISS is being shut down in 2015. Reason why it was built is to monitor climate changes, geological changes.

Ancient knowledge, civilizations, when one has it all recorded, the truth will come to you. The one who thinks our moon is there and no one is living on it, is in complete denial because humans and their super egos would take a big hit if we humans believed how DUPED we all were. Who wants to admit we are being duped? It's embarrassing. What makes it more embarrassing is the people who deny it over and over because of fear and the threat to the human belief that we are the most superior race in the galaxy.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Actually this is a better site for ISS tracking :

www.heavens-above.com...




top topics



 
39
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join